Ed,
You're perfectly correct that everything I mentioned can be taught
without highly abstract linguistic terminology. But very little of what
I and other linguists on the list have been pushing for is drawn from
the full Arcanum of linguistics -- it's the nuts and bolts stuff.
"Subordination" *is* a linguistic term. And with phonology and
morphology, most of what we're talking about is material like "prefixes
and suffixes," or "consonant clusters." I certainly have no objection to
adopting simpler terms -- hence my use of "clumping" rather than
"constituency."
If your fear is that linguists will automatically expect K-12 teachers
to start firing off terms like "asyndetic parataxis" or "INFL
saturation," rest assured that we won't (well, I can't rule out some
fringe cases wanting to, but we needn't accommodate them). Keep in mind
that the terms used in discussions for putting together a list of
desiderata can be quite different from the terms actually used with the
K-12 students themselves.
As for practical methods for getting students to the point where they
can have the kinds of discussions we'd love to have, I think having
activities in the early grades in which students actively investigate
and talk about language will help *even if these activities don't always
conform to most people's ideas of "grammar" work.* If we think about
this as an issue of "Language structure awareness" instead of just
"grammar," we may be moving in the right direction -- not that grammar
as a subject is a bad thing, but it comes with so much baggage that the
term itself tends to lead educators to think about the subject only in
very narrow ways.
Oh -- and I have to admit that I made "INFL saturation" up (as far as I
know). It just sounded so nicely intimidating and pseudoscience-y.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Vavra
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Craig & Amy * I wish you well.
Bill,
I don't disagree. Indeed I love your example. But I don't see the
need for "linguistic" terminology. Your example simply requires the
students to understand the concept of subordination and subordinate
clauses. I would also suggest that for students to be able to apply what
you are teaching, they need to be able to identify subordinate clauses,
not just understand the underlying concept.
I also share your frustration. My Freshman composition classes have
been dealing with similar examples in the last two days. Some students
really are entranced by the differences that clause structure can make,
but most students simply have not had enough time and practice in
identifying clauses in the first place. Thus they have trouble
understanding what is going on. From my perspective, we should be doing
a lot more of the type of work you suggest, but I don't see how we can
do so. Note that there has not been even a suggestion on this thread as
to what, specifically, students should be able to do/understand. Should
high school students be able to identify (and thus explain and discuss
the implications of) the clauses in their own writing? I've seen a lot
of suggestions for linguistic concepts that students should know, but I
have seen very little that is specific and applicable.
To be perfectly honest, my sense is that many of the linguists on
this list do not want to see specific objectives developed and
supported. If they were, then those linguists would, for example, have
to teach their students (future teachers) how to identify the subjects,
verbs, clauses, etc. in students' writing. As a result, they would not
have time to teach phonology, morphology, etc. * the things that they
have been taught and want to teach. I hope I am wrong, but we'll see.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/19/05 12:31 PM >>>
Ed,
I think I should clarify some of my reasoning behind adding some
linguistically-oriented "wannas" to the discussion of standards. If
you're thinking only in terms of composition, I don't blame you for
being annoyed when linguists keep wanting students to have kinds of
information that you don't see as having any clear direct relation to
improving writing.
Part of the problem, I think, is that when people think of "English
class," they immediately think of two things -- reading (first how to
read, and then literature) and writing -- and then don't consider
further what areas "English" might entail.
In *all* areas of K-12 education, we want students to develop critical
thinking skills. It's not enough for them to read -- they need to read
critically. And they need to write critically too. A very large
proportion of the human experience is tied up in language, and for
students to think critically, they need to be able to think critically
*about* the language that surrounds them. This is not just a
job-preparation issue, it's an ethical and civic issue as well. And to
think critically about language, you have to be able to talk about kinds
of words, the way words clump together, and the ways different clumping
patterns affect the meaning the hearer/reader constructs.
It's important for students to realize that there really is a difference
between "Social security is going bankrupt and we have to do something
about it" and "Since social security is going bankrupt, we need to do
something about it." The first presents bankruptcy as an assertion,
something that is open to contradiction; the second presents it as a
fact. That's an important difference, but try discussing it with a
student with no practice in thinking about language structure (I've
tried).
When thinking about grammar, then, we shouldn't ask what students should
come out of the composition class knowing; we should ask what students
should come out of their K-12 education knowing. Were schools structured
differently, some of this might not even be "housed" within English at
all. Given current course structures, though, English is the logical
place for it -- as if English teachers weren't already called upon to
cover too many areas, alas.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
